We Won’t Get Fooled Again

I can still remember first hearing the phrase “compassionate conservative”. It was coming from Karen Hughes, and I was quite certain at the time that it was a lie, calculated to assuage liberal Republican and conservative Democrat anxiety about the hardship that social conservatism might cause. “Don’t worry”, it said, “we’ll find other ways to help.” You could almost hear the snicker that followed – “Because us, we’re all about the helping.” It was obvious to me then that Bush was lying about who he was and what he would do. God, or perhaps his sense of manifest destiny, or more likely the operatives who had sought him out in their search for a candidate who could unite economic conservatives and evangelical Christians – had told him to, I suppose. But in any event, you didn’t need to know he was lying – it would have been enough to be suspicious, and to recognize that there simply wasn’t anything in the man’s record that gave credit to who he was claiming he was, or what he was claiming he would do, and it seemed obvious to me that he just wasn’t ready. A few more terms in the Texas Governor’s mansion, and the voters would know.

Still, many folks bought it. Bush spoke well, and communicated his message clearly. It didn’t seem to register with many folks that that’s not hard to do – clearly, not enough voters remember Jim Bakker and Elmer Gantry – and that the Presidency is a powerful incentive to lie well. And of course, once some people sign on to a campaign, others will join simply because it appears to be the popular thing to do. No one likes being left out by the popular. And at heart, most people want to do the right thing. There is no easier quality for others to manipulate than our desire to help others and make the world a better place.

I used to think that elections didn’t really matter. I used to think that there was enough institutional inertia designed into democracy that even a moron with a plan couldn’t do much damage. But seeing an emasculated Congress bow down before an Imperial President with a need for war changed that. I used to think that a broad-based political opposition with a clear goal and public support could talk truth to power and keep it on the straight and narrow. But seeing a legacy student with gentleman’s C’s routinely outmaneuver the Democrats changed that. Now I believe that the choices we make in elections matter – sometimes very much. The price of liberty is indeed eternal vigilance. And it alarms me to no end that we live in an age of both unrivaled media intensity and an education system on life support. We have never been more assaulted by media persuading us that up is down, black is white and conservative is liberal, and we have never been less able to be vigilant – less able to make discerning choices about the world around us. Heck, most people, when pressed on simple geography, don’t even know where the world around us is.

Which is why, at the end of the day, Senator Barack Obama makes me so uncomfortable. I’m not immune to his charms – I first heard him speak at his ‘Audacity of Hope’ speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I’ve never been as moved by a ‘mere speech’ as I was that day. I want – desperately, sometimes – to believe that the principles he speaks about can make the world a better place. I want to believe that the democratic process can be fixed; that we can replace the careerists, and their sycophants and fixers, with people of conviction and ability who can deal with each other and us honestly, seriously and with good will. But I’ve been lied to, conned, tricked, deceived, gerrymandered, filibustered, last-minute amended, secretly lobbied, slush-funded, cash-enveloped, PAC-ed, Watergated, WMD’ed, Abu Ghraib-ed, Judith Miller-ed, curveball-ed, yellow-caked, push poll-ed and Willie Horton-ed to within an inch of my political life, and I don’t trust any politician as far as I can spit. The most important political skill I have left – and I’m convinced that this is true for all of us – is my skepticism, and I just do not accept any longer that someone wants what they say they want and is who they say they are simply because they say so and can buy a lot of pretty advertising that repeats that claim. And as far as I’m concerned, the fact that a candidate can say so literately, even beautifully, can marshall the popular kids to their cause, and can tap into the deeply-held needs and the beliefs of the electorate, makes me more skeptical, not less. So far, all of that – every last bit of it – is TV and advertising – is entertainment, nothing more, nothing less – and I want to see action – a solid, demonstrable record that a candidate is who they say they are and wants what they say they want – before I can be called to action.

Obama may be that guy. He may well be Neo, the messiah – he may even be the one guy left who can save us from the world going to hell in a hand basket. But I don’t want a political romance, and I’m not hungry for a return to the halcyon days of Camelot. I want someone who has a proven passion and ability to fix a broken system. And until I see that in a candidate, I’m more wary than credulous, and I’m suspending my belief.

I realize that this may be a generational issue – that Obama may need to appeal in the way he does to the generations that follow me because my counterparts and I have been so spoiled by the wasted idealism of our youths (the generation that preceded me stopped a war – what did we do?) that we cannot be reached by ideology or vision. And I realize that Obama’s approach may be precisely what is needed now, here, today. But I don’t have any credulousness left. And first, I’d like to find a candidate who can fix that.

Update: An interesting point of view from Kinsella on the excellent Obama “Yes we can” video.

Great post. Well articulated. But I disagree. I believe this is an opportunity that can only be seized with no small amount of faith. And I believe that the only way to overcome our cynicism is to take a chance on that faith. I believe that the upside in our investment of faith in Obama far outweighs the downside of what we may lose by not taking the chance.

If we go with Hillary, something good *will* happen: we will replace Bush with a smart, competent, woman, liberal who will help us move past the last 8 years. But if we go with Obama, something *great* may happen.

I don’t think it should matter, when it comes to expressing an opinion about whether he’s the right person for that job, that I’m not a citizen. It’s an opinion. You can always not read it, if you wish. I won’t be offended in the least. By the way, pleased to meet you – we’re the country north of you, and we’re profoundly affected by what your leaders do. And it’s worth mentioning that our soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan because your President left the job unfinished so that he could move troops to Iraq. It’s not just OK for us to have an opinion about your leaders (and candidates), it’s necessary.

As far as whether the opinion is informed or not, the average well-informed Canadian understands US politics better than the average ill-informed American. That’s not surprising. You can discount the opinion or not accordingly.

None of what I said suggests that Americans are any different than anyone else – worse or better – when it comes to picking their democratically elected leaders. Because they aren’t.

“Your article gave the impression …”. It’s an opinion. My blog tells you who I am. I don’t need anyone’s permission to express it. No offense intended, but it’s not “fine, to a certain extent” – it’s just fine. Or so your constitution (and ours) says.

I’m not demonizing Senator Obama. I’m writing about him, as I have many times, often in very complimentary terms, which is of course irrelevant. I said nothing about the man, except that he was untested and largely unknown, which is simply a fact. With all due respect, if you think that’s “demonizing” him, buckle up, because the Republicans are coming, and they will have more to say. Almost none of it will be pleasant.

Thanks, Jay. And I agree with you re HRC – there’s is definitely something missing there. At the end of the day, I’m honestly not sure how important that is – maybe likeability shouldn’t matter. But we’re choosing people to deal on our behalf with other people, so we naturally expect them to have interpersonal skills we admire. I suppose it depends. Churchill was apparently an arrogant SOB. But he brought home the bacon when it mattered.

Rob-
I believe you make some valid points. I feel that the US has indeed fallen prey to big corporations and their unique vision of what the world is. I agree that people are under educated and most do not believe that we have to maintain constant vigilance against any sweet talking politician who wants nothing more than the power of the office. The old adage is true – power absolutely corrupts.

Having said that, however, I have a real problem with what in the end turned into an anti-Obama rant. What makes Barack Obama more of an issue than Senators Hillary Clinton or John McCain? Each of them tells us what they want us to hear. I have come to expect that from any politician. As an American, there are several things that I worry about with each of them. John McCain is just the old guard dressed in new clothing. What about the completely distasteful idea of dynasty that seems, at least on it’s surface, to spell the beginning of the end for a free society? In my lifetime, there has been exactly one administration that didn’t have a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket – and I was far too young to remember anything about Jimmy Carter. These are all things that we have to be mindful of when selecting our leaders.

Do politicians lie to obtain office – most assuredly. I expect it, as do most people I know. We will never be able to have someone in office who didn’t lie through his teeth to get there, of this I am convinced. Something in the nature of the beast precludes it. One of my favorite quotes about the matter comes from Mark Twain – I will paraphrase – No one capable of getting elected to the office of president should ever be given the job. I find politicians distasteful, but necessary, and I am willing to throw my hat in with the one who seems to me the most capable of steering this great nation toward a bright future. Having said that, I was never fooled by the likes of George W Bush, I spent hours knocking on doors and calling voters to keep that man out of office only to see that hope hang by a chad in Florida. I watched Bill Clinton before him with a certain amount of bemusement, because I couldn’t figure out the people who didn’t see the womanizer in his slick politician’s smile. I voted for him all the same, because his plans more closely fit with my ideals. Sometimes we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

So I read your blog, and I was confused and confounded regarding why Senator Obama was in effect demonized for being the more romantic of the choices for office. He is, as you pointed out, a brilliant speaker, and as I watched his speech at the 2004 convention, I felt moved. I haven’t felt that in a while, especially from a politician. I come from a generation jaded by political scandal, who has spent her adult life watching political opponents spend more time trying to bring down one another than actually doing anything for the country. Part of me thinks that a slightly rosier view of our politicians might not be such a bad thing after all.

Then I realized that you were Canadian.

Please forgive me a moment of American indignation. I certainly have been accused in the past of having a slightly Amerocentric view of the world, especially from my Canadian friends. I have been repeatedly told that we here in the US tend to focus too much on our own issues and seem to think that everyone else in the world should be concerned with our politics when the truth is that not everyone cares about the US’s views. I suppose on one hand, the title of your article is accurate – you won’t be fooled again because presumably you weren’t fooled the first time. Unless, of course, you watched with glee as the second Bush took over the nation and thought, “Gee this sure will be good for Canada”. Or, there is always the possibility that you run across the border to vote on the first Tuesday in November every four years for president. Or perhaps you are an American expatriate living abroad who is watching this latest election with a bit of trepidation, unsure of whether to come home – though I didn’t see where you eluded to that possibility anyplace on your site.

This leads me to the conclusion that you are simply put, a Canadian citizen, interested in the election in the US in a neighborly way. Which is fine, to a certain extent, I do believe in freedom of speech after all. However, your article gave the impression that you were a fellow American concerned with the election of how our country is shaping up.

Well, sir, I am an American, and though we are often thought of as brash or uneducated, we are thoroughly proud. We have a foreign policy right now that needs fixing, but I will tell you this: most of the issues we are concerned with have to do with our unemployment rate, our border security, our involvement in an ill-though-out campaign in the middle east, our lack of a health care system, and the overall health of our nation. I understand wanting to know what happens with a neighbor nation, I watch with interest what goes on politically in both Canada and Mexico, but I have never passed myself off as a concerned Canadian or Mexican citizen when speaking of or writing about the happenings in a neighbor country. I found it irresponsible and questionable at the very least.

You may be uncomfortable with the idea of Senator Barack Obama taking office here in the USA, but as a Canadian, you don’t have a say in that. I do, as do my compatriots. We here in the US have the chance and the right to vote. I may want a little romance in my candidate and back in my president. I want my leaders to have passion and be self possessed and to be able to formulate a coherent thought. I want to cast my vote for the man or woman who best fits my own passions about my own country. That is the power of citizenship and that is how we as Americans maintain our vigilance. We have to hold our leaders accountable and watch their every move. We have been far too lax about that with the current administration, I will admit, but as an American, that is my responsibility, my duty and my right. I will go out tomorrow and caucus for the best candidate in my opinion and take part in the great system that was put in place by the forefathers of this nation, and come this November, I will once again wait out in the cold for my right to help choose my leader. I hope that as you watch the returns, you realize that for better or for worse, we make our choices in this nation based on the freedom to do so as Americans.

Wow. You just became my favorite Canadian political blogger. The sad part is you’re not alone in how we view politicians. The problem comes when we just accept it rather than demand something/someone different/better/more honest.

[…] robhyndman.com » Blog Archive » We Won’t Get Fooled Again THIS is why I feel so electorally disengaged! “I don’t want a political romance. I want someone with a proven passion and ability to fix a broken system. Until I see that in a candidate, I’m more wary than credulous, and I’m suspending my belief.” (tags: human+nature politics emotions psychology leadership critical+thinking) […]

Amy – thanks for the kind words and for dropping by. The seed was planted a few weeks about by something Jarvis wrote in some frustration for Change as the catchphrase of this cycle. Got me thinking about what really is important to me now.

Followed a Twitter-trail from Mathew Ingram to get here. Wow, you totally nailed why I’ve been feeling utterly disengaged in US presidential politics! And here I’d been feeling guilty about it!

I’m not against romance per se. It can be fun, thrilling, and invigorating — but it’s no way to run your life OR your country. IMHO, pervasive and predominant myths of everlasting and all-powerful romance of any sort are a the “emperor’s clothes” in today’s American society.

Beautifully put. Obama’s media campaign is brilliantly designed to instill passion and, well, hope, but is it enough? I am the generation after you and I feel all of my buttons being pushed — it’s a good feeling (he’s our candidate!), but in the end, aren’t we being fooled by more media trickery? How will we ever know a candidates real self until he or she has been in office for some time? I wish Obama had more of a record and a history of service, but I can’t find myself liking HRC (as much as I might like to). Then again, I can’t vote anyway (although, apparently, I might choose to give up my ballot along with the other 15% of Canadians who would: http://www.cbc.ca/news/polls/canada-world/findings.html).